Terrorism

[Kifle]

Avak, why do you believe in an absolute right or wrong? I mean, I believe in kantian morality and I don't buy the idea that categorical imperatives are universal. They are well-suited for a moral human society, but I can't get to the universal from there. Like you said, the absolute rights and wrongs are ultimately unobtainable and so completely unuseable because we couldn't identify them if we tried. With those ideas in mind, I go back to my first sentence. I'm curious.

Kant was an idiot.

Now back to your regular scheduled argument...

[Mitharx]

You'd know.

[Kifle]

You'd know.

I would, and I do.

[avak]

Mitharx

Ahh, I wasn't terribly clear. I find the arguments plausible, but I'm not nearly educated enough (or probably even intelligent enough) to say for sure. I'm pretty much working through existentialism right now. I guess some people would find that train of thought easily dismissable too though.

So, if that wasn't clear, I don't believe in universal truths, but I can see how someone could. As you said though, it doesn't matter because if they exist they're unobtainable.

[teflor the ranger]

Recently, Americans have negotiated with so-called terrorists in Iraq. Despite an official Presidential policy that we do not, we negotiated a cease fire with Muktada al Sadr. If you have forgotten, al Sadr was actively encouraging both military and civilian killings. The negotiations have resulted in an almost complete quelching of violence from al Sadr's followers. I highly doubt the negotiation entailed, "Stop or we'll kill you" seeing as how that was the policy before the talks.

In summary, two points...one, blanket statements about Good and Evil, Right and Wrong may be convenient for maintaining a focused worldview predicated on fear, but they do little for an honest discussion of the problems we find ourselves facing.

Two, everyone has a reason for everything. Its like Newton's 3rd Law for Psychology...for every action, there is a reason. De-humanizing is, once again, a transparent attempt at maintaining a worldview based on fear. If you allowed yourself to see into the chaotic reality, you would see that we are also guilty.

Al Sadr never bombed schoolchildren. Al Sadr never bombed a mosque. Al Sadr came to the table instead of trying to blow it up.

Nice try, sparky. It might help to know what you're talking about.

[avak]

Recently, Americans have negotiated with so-called terrorists in Iraq. Despite an official Presidential policy that we do not, we negotiated a cease fire with Muktada al Sadr. If you have forgotten, al Sadr was actively encouraging both military and civilian killings. The negotiations have resulted in an almost complete quelching of violence from al Sadr's followers. I highly doubt the negotiation entailed, "Stop or we'll kill you" seeing as how that was the policy before the talks.

In summary, two points...one, blanket statements about Good and Evil, Right and Wrong may be convenient for maintaining a focused worldview predicated on fear, but they do little for an honest discussion of the problems we find ourselves facing.

Two, everyone has a reason for everything. Its like Newton's 3rd Law for Psychology...for every action, there is a reason. De-humanizing is, once again, a transparent attempt at maintaining a worldview based on fear. If you allowed yourself to see into the chaotic reality, you would see that we are also guilty.

Al Sadr never bombed schoolchildren. Al Sadr never bombed a mosque. Al Sadr came to the table instead of trying to blow it up.

Nice try, sparky. It might help to know what you're talking about.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0, ... 12,00.html

Death at 'immoral' picnic in the park - Students are beaten to death for playing music as Shia militiamen run amok

Al-Sadr's supporters were reported to be involved in an attack on a group of students in Basra who were having a picnic in a park. Several of the students were killed.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3068555

Al-Khoei refused to deal with al-Sadr, and instead escorted the custodian of the shrine, an extremely unpopular Baath loyalist named Haidar Raifee, from hiding back to his post at the mosque.

According to witnesses, at the mosque they were confronted by an angry mob, some of whom are reported to have shouted "Raifee is back" and others "Long live al-Sadr"[1]. The mob killed Raifee with bayonets and knives; al-Khoei was chased down and killed in an alley near the nearby headquarters of al-Sadr.

And, of course, don't forget that al Sadr intentionally used a mosque as a defensive position in his standoff against the US.

But, let's hope that bombing mosques and blowing up children doesn't automatically make one a terrorist.

US Marines killed at least 40 people in an attack on a mosque in central Fallujah on Wednesday as violence spread from the Sunni town of Fallujah to Shiite cities south of the capital city of Baghdad.

US Marines fired a rocket and dropped a 225-kg, laser-guided bomb on the mosque. Part of a wall surrounding the mosque was destroyed, witnesses said.

And from a recent study on civilian casualities in Iraq:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4696875.stm

Breakdown of civilian deaths
Category, Number killed, % of total
US-led forces alone, 9,270, 37.3
Anti-occupation forces alone, 2,353, 9.5

Although men aged 18 or over account for the bulk of civilian deaths over the two years, women and children comprise almost 20%.

[teflor the ranger]

Thanks for doing all the research for me. Funny how those are all worded. "Al Sadr" doesn't seem to be mentioned unmodified. For a while Osama Bin Laden was an "Al Sadr Supporter."

As for US attacks on mosques, don't be a moron. It's not a mosque when it's a firing position.

Your arguments are weak. Pathetic.

Meatloaf and cupcakes are baked in tins.

Congrats on all that hot air puffing you up.

[Shiallia]

You know, I somehow knew that even when presented with concrete evidence that he would not be able to see anyone else's side. Nice try, though, avak.

[teflor the ranger]

Shiallia

What concrete evidence?

"Al-Sadr's supporters were reported to be involved in an attack on a group of students in Basra who were having a picnic in a park. Several of the students were killed."

This proves a bunch of people who say they support Al-Sadr killed a bunch of students.

I'm very sorry, but these people also say they support the Islamic faith.

Muslim supporters were reported to be involved in an attack on a group of students in Basra who were having a picnic in a park. Several of the students were killed.


Concrete my butt.


Find me where Al Sadr was advocating the killing of children and women and the innocent and that would actually be proof... but wait, you don't have any because you're full of crap.

[teflor the ranger]

And from a recent study on civilian casualities in Iraq:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4696875.stm

Breakdown of civilian deaths
Category, Number killed, % of total
US-led forces alone, 9,270, 37.3
Anti-occupation forces alone, 2,353, 9.5

Although men aged 18 or over account for the bulk of civilian deaths over the two years, women and children comprise almost 20%.

This is how you do research.

[Shiallia]

Teflor,

The concrete evidence of links and quotes from valid news reports etc. As a civilian I doubt that he, or you for that matter, could get more concrete than that in this forum.

[Shiallia]

Oh and by the way, your activity on these forums could be construed as terroristic so rein it in a tad eh?

[teflor the ranger]

Thirty men set up mortars to try to kill US troops as they move into town. They carry with them rifles and weapons, just sitting and waiting to kill, maim, and otherwise cause horrific harm to US soldiers.

They happen to be in a mosque.

The US drops a bomb on them and the threat is eliminated.


********************************

Five hundered muslim worshippers are attending mosque for services. They gather with their families, their children, to pray and reflect on their lives.

The terrorists want to kill them all to send a message that they are the true warriors of their god Allah. They know the time that there will be the most innocent gathered is during services at a mosque. They know women and children will be amongst them.

The terrorists bomb the mosque during the peak of services, maiming and killing and destroying as many lives as they can, attacking those unarmed and unwilling to fight.






If you can't understand the difference, just stop talking because the majority of humanity will neither care or believe whatever it is you're talking about.

[teflor the ranger]

Teflor,

The concrete evidence of links and quotes from valid news reports etc. As a civilian I doubt that he, or you for that matter, could get more concrete than that in this forum.

The evidence is concrete. The conclusions drawn from them are immature, irrational, and utterly useless.

You can use concrete to crush nutshells and glass. You cannot use concrete to crush concrete.

[Shiallia]

Hmmm immature, irrational and utterly useless...I found them very rational given his concepts, useful in terms assessing his thoughts and feelings, and very mature considering he called noone an idiot, moron, or arse. Shrug, perception I suppose.

[teflor the ranger]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,7374-1537512,00.html

Death at 'immoral' picnic in the park - Students are beaten to death for playing music as Shia militiamen run amok

Al-Sadr's supporters were reported to be involved in an attack on a group of students in Basra who were having a picnic in a park. Several of the students were killed.

Saying that Al-Sadr is a terrorist because some people that say they support him and kill several children is fundamentally illogical and quite backwards thinking. I do not refute that this incident has occured and in fact, I would expect something like this to happen.

But I'm very sorry, you have utterly and completely failed to make Al-Sadr into a terrorist.

Al-Khoei refused to deal with al-Sadr, and instead escorted the custodian of the shrine, an extremely unpopular Baath loyalist named Haidar Raifee, from hiding back to his post at the mosque.

According to witnesses, at the mosque they were confronted by an angry mob, some of whom are reported to have shouted "Raifee is back" and others "Long live al-Sadr"[1]. The mob killed Raifee with bayonets and knives; al-Khoei was chased down and killed in an alley near the nearby headquarters of al-Sadr.

Again, this does not make Al-Sadr a terrorist any more than you would have been speeding being in a car driven too fast by someone else.

And, of course, don't forget that al Sadr intentionally used a mosque as a defensive position in his standoff against the US.

Al-Sadr is not a terrorist but a religious leader. When you're a religious leader in a fight, you fight from a religious castle. Now in Islam, what would qualify as a religious castle... HMMMM.

But, let's hope that bombing mosques and blowing up children doesn't automatically make one a terrorist.

US Marines killed at least 40 people in an attack on a mosque in central Fallujah on Wednesday as violence spread from the Sunni town of Fallujah to Shiite cities south of the capital city of Baghdad.

US Marines fired a rocket and dropped a 225-kg, laser-guided bomb on the mosque. Part of a wall surrounding the mosque was destroyed, witnesses said.

This is about as ignorant as you can get. I have illustrated the difference in the post above (scroll up to read it).

And from a recent study on civilian casualities in Iraq:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4696875.stm

Breakdown of civilian deaths
Category, Number killed, % of total
US-led forces alone, 9,270, 37.3
Anti-occupation forces alone, 2,353, 9.5

Although men aged 18 or over account for the bulk of civilian deaths over the two years, women and children comprise almost 20%.

Nothing can be said to this one piece. It is a good source and something we can shape argument around.

[teflor the ranger]

Hmmm immature, irrational and utterly useless...I found them very rational given his concepts, useful in terms assessing his thoughts and feelings, and very mature considering he called noone an idiot, moron, or arse. Shrug, perception I suppose.

Please tell me you have a mirror in your mom's basement where you dress up in a suit, hand over heart, and recite this crap to yourself.

Real mature. Your perception needs some work.

[Shiallia]

I was referring to the final post, I don't choose to dwell on past posts made when you antagonize someone into finally losing their control and telling you what they really think.

[teflor the ranger]

Fair enough. I don't see a reason to push my point on that anymore.

[Lahgen]

Well, were there women and children known to be in the mosques when US forces targeted it? If not, then a comparision cannot be made.

[avak]

well. wow.

I think one question on the table is whether or not muktada al sadr is a terrorist. First of all, I brought al Sadr up as an example of how one can negotiate with alleged/accused/bona fide/mispercieved (pick one) "terrorists." Not to belabor whether he -actually- is one. I brought up evidence to show how, using Teflor's criteria, he could be called a terrorist. Pretty simple train of thought. No one ever asked me if I thought he was a terrorist, but the answer is: I'm not sure.

I'll tell you that George Bush was careful not to directly call al Sadr a terrorist (he may have at one point, not like I really care that much), but he did call his followers, the Mahdi army, "thugs and terrorists"

http://www.detnews.com/2004/nation/0404 ... 121259.htm

al Sadr had called for a jihad against America on a number of occassions. Funny, I can't seem to find the transcripts online! However, he also said this:

He then referred to the September 11 attacks as "a miracle from God."

"As we say, 'The rain starts with a drop,' " he said.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/03/26/iraq.main/

Read between the lines...this is close to endorsing the killing of innocent women and children (and men! we is people too!!) as you'll see in public record. So, does that address this:

Find me where Al Sadr was advocating the killing of children and women and the innocent and that would actually be proof... but wait, you don't have any because you're full of crap.

I'm sure not. Perhaps you can find another peripheral point in my posts to argue over. Actually, arguing with you, Teflor, sucks...waste of time...not fun. Yes, I'm sure you think its because I'm ignorant, petty, useless, full of crap, etc...I've been accused of worse and kept talking, mostly for the challenge...but what can I say...

So, unless other people join in I'll bow out.

[teflor the ranger]

Read between the lines...
al Sadr had called for a jihad against America
""As we say, 'The rain starts with a drop,' " he said."

Funny, there doesn't seem to be anything there. Jihad is a holy war, not a terrorist atrocity. At least Al-Sadr put up a real fight and fought man to man, rather than killing the innocent - which is talked about in the very article you posted.

The rain falls on the just and the unjust alike.

I say bring on a little rolling thunder.

[teflor the ranger]

Damnit, Avak, read your own $#@!# sources.

Al-Sadr led the worshippers in chants: "No, no Israel! No, no to the Jews! No, no America! No, no to terrorism!"

Read between those lines. In fact, read more about Al-Sadr before you flap your gums and I KNOW that you'll figure it out eventually.

[Kifle]

Damnit, Avak, read your own $#@!# sources.

Al-Sadr led the worshippers in chants: "No, no Israel! No, no to the Jews! No, no America! No, no to terrorism!"

Read between those lines. In fact, read more about Al-Sadr before you flap your gums and I KNOW that you'll figure it out eventually.

I know this is a mistake and most likely useless, but...

That quote from Al-Sadr doesn't really help you, Tef. Taken out of context it could mean many things. Also, if you are implying that "No, no to terrorism!" means that he's against terrorism, it is a weak argument. Nobody who is usually guilty of terrorism admits they are a terrorist. I'd bring up Nicaragua again, but I'm done beating dead horses.

Anyway, good luck Avak. Just walk away before you end up punching a cat or a kid or something.

[teflor the ranger]

It's not just a quote Kifle. Read about Al-Sadr and learn enough about him to write a small summary of the part he has taken in the recent Iraq conflict and I'm certain you will come to respect the man as I have.

Why do you continue to insist on talking when you truly know nothing?

[Kifle]

It's not just a quote Kifle. Read about Al-Sadr and learn enough about him to write a small summary of the part he has taken in the recent Iraq conflict and I'm certain you will come to respect the man as I have.

Why do you continue to insist on talking when you truly know nothing?

Not just a quote? Is it also a toaster oven? But, I truly know nothing, so I'll go back to my hole in the ground.

[teflor the ranger]

Not just a quote? Is it also a toaster oven? But, I truly know nothing, so I'll go back to my hole in the ground.

Or you could just read about Al-Sadr and see that he is not a terrorist and is also a person that we can come to the table with to discuss our issues.

[avak]

Yes, I am aware that this thread was dying a relatively quiet death, but I can't resist.

The Bush Administration is now working to reframe their extremist rhetoric concerning the 'war on terror.' That would be the same extremist rhetoric that kicked off this discussion. Examples can be found by re-reading the thread (unlikely) or ponder these exerpts:

Terrorism isn't a problem that is solved. They are people that beg to be destroyed.
If you take away their targets, they will find other targets. If you take away their
tools, they will use other methods. If you take away the reasons for their insanity;
their jealousy, selfishness, ignorance, spitefulness, will only spurn them down some
other destructive path.

Make no mistake. Evil must be smote, not reconciled. A hatred of humanity is not a
crime, but an attack on the citizens of London as the one today is a declaration of
war against humanity.

Killing all the terrorists and improving security are the only things that will work.
People who believe they can change things by bombing women and children will do so
until they realize that it won't. Only through eternal vigiliance will they come to
the table instead of blowing it up.

Now from the New York Times, quoting Bush officials:

The solution is "more diplomatic, more economic, more political than it is military," he said.

Douglas Feith, the under secretary of defense for policy, said in an interview that if the U.S. efforts were limited to "protecting the homeland and attacking and disrupting terrorist networks, you're on a treadmill that is likely to get faster and faster with time."

The key to "ultimately winning the war," he said, "is addressing the ideological part of the war that deals with how the terrorists recruit and indoctrinate new terrorists."

http://www.iht.com/bin/print_ipub.php?f ... terror.php

How does it feel to hold a more extremist view than one of the most fanatical American presidents in history? Probably par for the course in light of the fact that you "respect the man" that called the 9/11 attacks a "miracle from god."

[teflor the ranger]

Are you saying a soldier cannot respect his enemy?

I suggest, Avak, that if you only have stupid things to say, you probably should keep them to yourself.

Furthermore, there will always be terrorism - there always has been.

Ignorance, Avak, is not an effective weapon.

How does it feel to be an idiot? Probably par per your usual course.

[teflor the ranger]

Avak, you're missing something simple and fundamental. If you ever make it into Washington D.C., go and see the 'Charters of Freedom' exhibit at the National Archives. Once you're done reading those documents on the original parchment, step outside and look around the building. If you look long enough you will find a simple saying chiseled inconspicuously into stone.

"Eternal Vigilance is the Price of Liberty"

The only way to defeat what is evil, is to continue to defeat it. Make no mistake. Evil must be smote, not reconciled.

Or tell me, Mr. Avak, how do you plan on "addressing the ideological part of the war that deals with how the terrorists recruit" Timmothy McVeigh, the Unabomber, abortion clinic bombers, the IRA, the ETA, freedom fighters, suicide bombers in Israel, ecological terrorists, and all other types of terrorism throughout history and will exist in the future?

Yeah. Thanks for playing.

[Raiwen]

The only way to defeat what is evil, is to continue to defeat it. Make no mistake. Evil must be smote, not reconciled.

Are we still talking about terrorism here?

If so, then fanatical muslims who believe that they must destroy the "Evil West" are they themselves - Evil?

The same could be said of the Roman Catholic church of the middle ages.

But empirically:
Terrorism is bad.
War is bad.
Killing people is bad.
Sometimes we choose to do bad things in order to make things good.

Now, replace "we" with "other people".

What we're facing now is this: the idea of "good" to us, and to these "other people" are not the same idea - and in fact are fundamentally opposed.

We may never be able to amend these differences. The same as we may never be able to kill every terrorist, or crazy wacko that wants to impose his idea of goodness on everyone else.

It's my view that this war on terror is not a war, but a lifestyle. A lifestyle that we will pass down to our children, and grand-children for generations to come. What I fear the most is that people will continue to sit scared in their homes while encouraging their leaders strip all freedoms from them in the name of security. We will be slaves to our fears.

Killing them, because they kill us is just going to increase the body count. And if it's a game of numbers, the United States is in the minority.

so, I'm glad our president has finally decided that "hey, maybe killing people isn't the answer to this problem."

[teflor the ranger]

so, I'm glad our president has finally decided that "hey, maybe killing people isn't the answer to this problem."

You're an idiot. Just, really, really, stupid.

If you can't see the difference between toppling a maniacal mass murdering genocidal tyrant and driving a car bomb into a crowd of Iraq children

there is nothing you can say that I can respect.

[Raiwen]

If you can't see the difference between toppling a maniacal mass murdering genocidal tyrant and driving a car bomb into a crowd of Iraq children

You are incredibly naive.

Yes, we liberated a country from a tyrannt, however, we have not delievered them into a lifestyle that is any better than what they had before.

What we have is our modern day Vietnam War. There is no end game. There will be no winner. You are the type of moron that wants to keep shoving money toward the middle east in hopes that bodies and blood will somehow fix the problem - yet with all your reading, and research you still have no clue what the real problem is all about.

Iraq isn't the enemy. Iraq the state has been defeated. The leaders of the old state have been removed. Instead, Iraq is now just the BATTLEGROUND for people to fullfill their agenda. If the battleground is destroyed and turned to glass, they will just find someplace else.

Get a brain Teflor! Stop blindly accepting what Uncle Sam is feeding you. That gun you tote at your side is only going to protect you from the enemies you can see.

[Siamorphe]

Stop the flaming, guys/gals/whatever you happen to be... This is well out of hand (AGAIN), and we really don't want to necessarily have to take away anyone's posting rights, but we very well might if you guys can't control yourselves.

Note that this post is not directed at any one particular person, but to everyone.

[teflor the ranger]

You are incredibly naive.

Yes, we liberated a country from a tyrannt, however, we have not delievered them into a lifestyle that is any better than what they had before.

...

Iraq isn't the enemy.

Raiwen, tell me, when has the US ever gone to war strictly to kill people? If you want, you can ask the Germans, the Koreans, the Japanese, and one day you can ask the Afghanis and the Iraqis. Who said Iraq was the enemy?

The naivety is completely on you. It's your ignorance, not mine.

Iraq will only become another Vietnam if hippies don't shut their holes.

[teflor the ranger]

Stop the flaming, guys/gals/whatever you happen to be... This is well out of hand (AGAIN), and we really don't want to necessarily have to take away anyone's posting rights, but we very well might if you guys can't control yourselves.

Note that this post is not directed at any one particular person, but to everyone.

Siamorphe, this is how we want to discuss it. It is reasonably civil, please keep your hands off our thread.

If there is a legitimate complaint, let it be heard by all.

Let us respond to our criticisms, I am an American and can stand up for myself.

[Raiwen]

Who said Iraq was the enemy?

You did, Teflor. Yet, again, you contradict yourself. You must have multiple personalities, because you obviously cannot remember the points you have made in previous threads. You should keep a notebook for yourselves, so you can keep track of what you write/say.

[teflor the ranger]

Who said Iraq was the enemy?

You did, Teflor. Yet, again, you contradict yourself. You must have multiple personalities, because you obviously cannot remember the points you have made in previous threads. You should keep a notebook for yourselves, so you can keep track of what you write/say.

Show me, if you can.

[Raiwen]

If you can't see the difference between toppling a maniacal mass murdering genocidal tyrant and driving a car bomb into a crowd of Iraq children

This is one example of many, in which you attempt to merge the idea of a war in Iraq to the war on terror. You have stated many times that we should eliminate terrorism, and the only way to do so is to annihilate them.

More examples of merging the two ideas:
http://www.torilmud.dyndns.org/phpBB2/v ... 589#148589

The time for debate is over. Freedom must prevail, fellowship must be established amongst nations that defend the rights of its citizens, terrorists must never find another target to bomb or hole in the ground to hide in again - ever. Our breathern in Iraq have held elections that they were not forced to participate in.

http://www.torilmud.dyndns.org/phpBB2/v ... 626#148626

I, however, completely disagree with Corth on the tactics that will cause the end of this violence. Two things that would go oh, about a gazillion times farther than imposing a puppet democracy in Iraq would be helping resolve the Israel-Palestine conflict and switching over to a fuel source that didn't depend so heavily on mid-east oil.

Yet, Avak, you must take the steps to get through the game. Folding is an option for those who lose. When they give up their bombs and guns and come to talk to you, then you know you have actually defeated terrorism.

In the following, posted in October of last year, you infer that there is still a war going on against Iraq. We were then and now "supposed" to be in a peacekeeping mission. There is no Iraqi leader, no capital to destroy, no primary target that will end the conflict.

Iraq, where elections are to be held in January, Saddam Hussein has been captured, and his armies dismantled?

I don't see failure in the cards here. If we had failed, maybe my brothers and sisters in the armed services would have stopped fighting.

Furthermore, the spread of human freedom will never be a failure until at the very least I have ceased to breathe. On top of that, lack of support for the war is a lack of support for the troops. We're trying to fight a war here, can you tell me WHY IN HELL Kerry voted against our damn support?

So, while you never stated "Iraq is the enemy", you have blurred the lines in your posts either deliberately or unintentional.

If we can agree that the conflict in the middle east is no longer about freeing Iraq. Then we can get on to the meat of the matter: the war on terror. That is a war we can not win through blood and bodies.

[Siamorphe]

Teflor,

Quite frankly, I don't care how you want to discuss it. This is OUR house, and you will abide by our posting rules as laid down multiple times by Shar and others, which state that there is to be NO FLAMING.

Calling someone "an idiot. Just, really, really, stupid" is NOT a form of civil discourse per that policy, and it will NOT be tolerated going forward.

In other words, this is not YOUR thread, and if you wish to criticize each other in a way contrary to our BBS policies, take it to tells or something. I'm not trying to squelch your debate; I'm trying to keep the unnecessary namecalling out of it.

By the way, I am also an American, but I know the rules of the house I live in, and it behooves you to learn them before you're kicked out of the house. Is that clearer?

[teflor the ranger]

Teflor,

Quite frankly, I don't care how you want to discuss it. This is OUR house, and you will abide by our posting rules as laid down multiple times by Shar and others, which state that there is to be NO FLAMING.

Calling someone "an idiot. Just, really, really, stupid" is NOT a form of civil discourse per that policy, and it will NOT be tolerated going forward.

In other words, this is not YOUR thread, and if you wish to criticize each other in a way contrary to our BBS policies, take it to tells or something. I'm not trying to squelch your debate; I'm trying to keep the unnecessary namecalling out of it.

By the way, I am also an American, but I know the rules of the house I live in, and it behooves you to learn them before you're kicked out of the house. Is that clearer?

http://www.torilmud.org/phpBB2/viewtopi ... 045#124045

"posts that contain little to no useful feedback"

"This is not to say that you cannot post negative feedback."

"We will no longer tolerate foul language in abundance."

"We actually need you to point out the negative aspects of this game. "

The posts from both parties contain useful feedback. We are having a dialogue. Some of it is negative but that is allowed. Neither of us are insulting or using foul language to any excessive degree.

http://www.torilmud.org/phpBB2/viewtopi ... 045#124045

[teflor the ranger]

Our breathern in Iraq have held elections that they were not forced to participate in.

You are incredibly naive.

...

Iraq isn't the enemy.

Raiwen, while I appreciate that you searched through everything to try to confirm what you said AFTER you said it, I would appreciate it more if in the future you would try to confirm things BEFORE you talk. Especially when you make false accusations.

I'm sure you can appreciate how frustrating it is to be slandered like that.

Is there anything else we should explore before we continue with this conversation?

[teflor the ranger]

In the following, posted in October of last year, you infer that there is still a war going on against Iraq. We were then and now "supposed" to be in a peacekeeping mission. There is no Iraqi leader, no capital to destroy, no primary target that will end the conflict.

Iraq, where elections are to be held in January, Saddam Hussein has been captured, and his armies dismantled?

I don't see failure in the cards here. If we had failed, maybe my brothers and sisters in the armed services would have stopped fighting.

Furthermore, the spread of human freedom will never be a failure until at the very least I have ceased to breathe. On top of that, lack of support for the war is a lack of support for the troops. We're trying to fight a war here, can you tell me WHY IN HELL Kerry voted against our damn support?

Where did I say against Raiwen?

Do you want to make any more stuff up?

[Pril]

Teflor,

Quite frankly, I don't care how you want to discuss it. This is OUR house, and you will abide by our posting rules as laid down multiple times by Shar and others, which state that there is to be NO FLAMING.

Calling someone "an idiot. Just, really, really, stupid" is NOT a form of civil discourse per that policy, and it will NOT be tolerated going forward.

In other words, this is not YOUR thread, and if you wish to criticize each other in a way contrary to our BBS policies, take it to tells or something. I'm not trying to squelch your debate; I'm trying to keep the unnecessary namecalling out of it.

By the way, I am also an American, but I know the rules of the house I live in, and it behooves you to learn them before you're kicked out of the house. Is that clearer?

http://www.torilmud.org/phpBB2/viewtopi ... 045#124045

"posts that contain little to no useful feedback"

"This is not to say that you cannot post negative feedback."

"We will no longer tolerate foul language in abundance."

"We actually need you to point out the negative aspects of this game. "

The posts from both parties contain useful feedback. We are having a dialogue. Some of it is negative but that is allowed. Neither of us are insulting or using foul language to any excessive degree.

http://www.torilmud.org/phpBB2/viewtopi ... 045#124045

"The simple rule of no flaming/hijacking seems to be the most difficult to follow here, of late. "

Man clearly Siamorphe has decided that it IS to an excessive degree so tone it down. End of discussion. Oh and stuff like:

"Get a brain Teflor!"

"You're an idiot. Just, really, really, stupid. "

"Ignorance, Avak, is not an effective weapon. "

"Why do you continue to insist on talking when you truly know nothing?"

"This is about as ignorant as you can get"

"Your arguments are weak. Pathetic. "

Is what Siamorphe is referring to I think. Those are just some of the quotes from a few of the posters. This is a good discussion and I'm enjoying reading it so just keep arguing and tone down the flames.

Pril

[teflor the ranger]

While I agree that there are insults and flames, I do not believe they are at an excessive level. This stuff isn't any worse than usual nor has it been out of control. It's sporadic and has not been continuous between any two people in discussion.

[avak]

First of all, let me just say that I will duly note the post from Siamorphe and I will refrain from overly snarky comments. In addition, Teflor, please keep in mind that you speak for yourself only and that a statement such as, "Siamorphe, this is how we want to discuss it," is patently false. -I- do not appreciate your juvenile responses to every single valid point anyone makes against you. If you take a second to peruse the General Discussion section of this BBS, you will quickly notice that the -overwhelming- majority of flamings involve you and are more often than not initiated by a classic inflammatory post such as, "You're ignorant."

I think, once again, this thread has been derailed by Teflor arguing peripheral points because the main thrust of his argument is impossible to defend outside of the extremist rhetoric that even the extraordinarily hawkish Bush Admin has discarded.

Raiwen hit the nail squarely on the head. This War on Terror, inappropriately coupled with a war in Iraq, is turning out to be a complete and utter failure. Beyond doing no good, it is demonstrably doing great harm. Here is, yet again, another credible article showing how dismal our efforts have been. And just so it is abundantly clear, this is a failure of our government (and indirectly, the voters who put that gov't in power), not the soldiers in Iraq.

http://www.sundayindependent.co.za/gene ... fSetId=452

Iraq has descended into chaos way beyond West's worst-case scenario

...

The war in Iraq is now joining the South African War (1899-1902) and the Suez crisis in 1956 as ill-considered ventures that have done Britain more harm than good. It has demonstrably strengthened al-Qaeda by providing it with a large pool of activists and sympathisers across the Muslim world it did not possess before the invasion of 2003. The war that started out as a demonstration of US strength as the world's only superpower has turned into a demonstration of weakness. Its 135 000-strong army does not control much of Iraq.

"Eternal Vigilance is the Price of Liberty"

Absolutely. That does not, however, mean illegal searchs, more police, closed borders, or any other strictly literal manifestation. Its figurative. It means money for fire fighters as much as it means freedom to protest Gitmo.

[teflor the ranger]

I will refrain from overly snarky comments.

-I- do not appreciate your juvenile responses to every single valid point anyone makes against you.

Juvenile.

[avak]

Yep, Teflor, statement of fact.

Once again, you parse for your convenience instead of addressing the issue.

[Pril]

While I agree that there are insults and flames, I do not believe they are at an excessive level. This stuff isn't any worse than usual nor has it been out of control. It's sporadic and has not been continuous between any two people in discussion.

Tef man look at it this way. While you may think that the flaming is not excessive the moderator of this forum believes it to be excessive and inappropriate, so just tone it down. Look at it this way. The mud as well as the bbs are Shar's/Shev's/Cyric's/etc home and we are all guests here. They love having us stay because they enjoy the company and they are gracious hosts who go out of their way to try and make us feel at home. Don't dishonor their "house" by not following simple hospitable rules. When people enter your parents house they take their shoes of so that they don't get the floors dirty. Please do the same.

Mike

[teflor the ranger]

I think, once again, this thread has been derailed by Teflor arguing peripheral points because the main thrust of his argument is impossible to defend outside of the extremist rhetoric that even the extraordinarily hawkish Bush Admin has discarded.

First of all, this is a peripheral discussion.

You are guilty of one.

You were discussing Israel when I was discussing terrorism.

You are guilty of two.

You also discussed biomatter and soybean oil.

You are guilty of three.

"Jesus teflor, maybe you should get off the short bus and take a trip on the logic train. "

Four

"Please tell me you have a mirror in your mom's basement where you dress up in a suit, hand over heart, and recite this crap to yourself. "

Five

Philosophy and the nature of absolute right and wrong?

Six

Civilian Casualties in Iraq

Seven






Guilty.